Carson2006

Jim, I use it as much as possible. But of course, the electrical inspector is the one to please and I haven't disappointed one yet. There really isn't a whole lot of information in this publication but what is in it is noteworthy at the least. There is a new publication out, 1-2009 I believe. $40 non-member price.

Mr. Katen, This is what I've found that covers "workmanlike". It may help. You may find it for free somewhere, I had to purchase my copy. It's National Electrical Contractors Association NECA 1-2000; Good Workmanship in Electrical Construction. My copy may be a bit outdated, but probably not much has changed. Maybe this might help folks.

Looks like something from an overseas location. I spent 20 years in the military; most of it as an electrician. Seen this sort of thing a number of times. Where do we start?? Good question. Other than gut it, start over, most let it be and they deal with it. Unfortunate at best.

Check NEC Art. 210.52(B)(1), (2), (3) and 210.52©(5)

It seems like the owner may have wired a new light in series with a switch loop type method. Switch loop is when the main power is brought to the fixture first and the "hot" conductor is looped down to a switch. When you do this method, a "neutral" colored conductor (usually white) is used as a hot and is supposed to be re-identified by using colored tape or any other means, but is usually not. A switch loop method is an acceptable NEC practice, but sometimes folks don't understand that a white colored conductor is being used as a hot and may accidently wire something wrong. Most times mis-wiring will cause a short, but it seems in this case they may have wired the additional light in series, which would cause a voltage drop for the other fixture, but may not be noticable. An electrican can easily fix if that is the problem. Hope this helps ya.

Seen this before, most likely pool chemicals (chlorine) was stored nearby. Or perhaps some other corrosive chemical, anyone's guess exactly what chemical though. I wouldn't want to have a panel board gunked up like that myself.

While one can't see if there is a box behind this mess, let's assume there is. There is at least one NEC Code violation here that I believe applies. See NEC Art. 110.12 Mechanical Execution of Work. Electrical Equipment SHALL be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner. The AHJ would determine this and I think most AHJ would determine that this receptacle installation is not installed in that manner. Pretty much common sense too that is would require destroying part of the wall just to make a simple receptacle replacement. Doubt a competent electrician installed this, but who knows.

Assuming that the cable clamps are inside the box, there are no raised covers or mud rings and one device is either connected to the #14 awg and the other is connected to the #12 awg, then the box is .50 cubic inches too small. Nothing a raised cover wouldn't take care of or an extension ring. Pass??

History, I've been reading this forum for quite some time and it has enlightened me on several occasions. However, I felt the need to "chime-in" on this doorbell issue. I'm a licensed electrician, in Arkansas BTW, and teach an electrical systems apprentice course. So I feel qualified to input my opinion on this matter, maybe it will help. Took a few minutes to look up "why" this is wrong. So let's begin. First, that keyless lampholder (note lampholder not fuseholder) is NOT listed (see UL Whitebook) as a fuseholder. The two applications are way different. This I promise. Second (going with the 2005 NEC as my 2008 is at work), Art 250.51(B) Edison base fuses are for replacement only. That means, not for new construction. Third, Art. 240.30(A) talks about physical protection with fuses in an enclosure. and 240.41 discussed their location. Fourth, Art. 240.52 means Edison base fuseholder must be able to accept Type S plug fuses; not to mention that Art. 725 has a plethora of information regarding low voltage installations that would be beneficial with this situation. Bottom line is that this setup is wrong albeit that's the way it's been done for 30 years. Electricians probably shouldn't be installing 1920's era overcurrent protection anyway and NEC prevents that with plug fuses. I would have it repaired as it's looks like a crummy install anyway. Hang the bell transformer off to the side of the box via a knockout, the 120V lines inside the box with a cover, the low voltage lines (usually 16V) stay outside. The branch circuit overcurrent protection will more than suffice for the protection of the conductors during faults as long as the circuit has the necessary equipment grounding. One other note of interest, if every little piece of electrical equipment needed protection at such a level, based on the equipment's wire size, then every single light fixture (luminaries) in your house should have little fuses placed in them. There is an article discussing the overcurrent protection for small fixture wires as well. There ya have it. Hope this helps.